11 ms·

Man the reporting on this ordeal has been so awful and so representative of how media misleads the public into thinking things are worse than they actually are.

• jiggawatts 2y ago
  This is a matter of perspective. The mission is what you call it. Sure, it’s not a “rescue”, it’s just an “unplanned itinerary change to another vessel”. Also, they’re not “marooned”, they’re “getting an extended work opportunity”.
  • dotnet00 2y ago
    "Rescue" conveys a much more negative situation than "unplanned itinerary change where the astronauts are safe and which they are happy about because they get to spend more time in space".
    • natch 2y ago
      Bone deterioration equating to decades in a matter of months, heart health impact, time away from family... it's negative.
      • LightBug1 2y ago
        I bet if you asked each of them if they could extend such a unique experience - one they're unlikely to experience again - would they say yes? IN. A. FCKING. HEARTBEAT. The postive's overwhelm the negatives by an infinite amount.
        • natch 2y ago
          You might be right, only they can say. I just don't take their statements in a press conference at face value, but yeah there is that silver lining.
  • tw04 2y ago
    So if you ride a ferry on a regular basis (which I'm sure at least a handful of HN folks do) - if that ferry breaks down before the return trip, when you catch the next ferry is that a "rescue mission", or are you just catching the next ferry? Replace ferry with bus, car, taxi, airplane, your transportation mode of choice. Calling this a rescue is, to OPs point, just dramatizing the situation for clicks. In pretty much any other circumstance, it wouldn't even make the news.
    • macinjosh 2y ago
      You are leaving out the tiny detail that compared to a ferry there are very limited opportunities to catch the next ferry. If a ferry breaks down you aren’t stuck in the island for 8 months. You could charter a boat, get a helicopter, go for a swim. Significant unexpected planning and spending have to go into getting them a different ride home. It’s closer to your car breaking down in a remote area. Would a tow truck be a rescue? I would think so.
      • Loughla 2y ago
        It's similar to your car breaking down in a remote area only if you've trained extensively for that area (almost your entire life), have food and supplies for the entire duration, have friends and entertainment, and can do your job as well as novel career options the entire time as well. It's overly dramatic to call it a rescue mission. It just is. It's not great that they're up there longer than planned, but they're not going to explode or fly off into space.
    • teruakohatu 2y ago
      I agree that calling it a rescue is a bit much, but this is hardly a case of missing a bus or ferry and catching the next one. If you missed a ferry, expecting to be away from your family for a week, only to find you are stuck on a desolate island for 8+ months you would probably feel like you were being rescued.
      • jwagenet 2y ago
        My understanding is the astronauts don’t mind staying longer because they enjoy it and for some (all?) it may be their last mission in space, in part due to the decommissioning.
• eth0up 2y ago
  I guess I'm a victim of this reporting to some extent, because I remember this situation going on for months, and I keep thinking every time it's mentioned (often) how terrible it must be for these astronauts and why something isn't done about it. But I know almost nothing regarding details. I know I despise Boeing and that I admire astronauts and that reading this headline, I thought 'its about fucking time!' But if I realize the entire situation has been misrepresented, I think I will be annoyed with myself. Is this really all nonsense? Is the situation normal, or common?
  • a1445c8b 2y ago
    “Normal” and “common” would still be the last words on my mind considering the amount of planning and money that goes into sending people to space and back. The only normal situation would be they go there and then back alive on the same mission as originally planned. Any divergence from that is totally abnormal.
  • addaon 2y ago
    > Is the situation normal, or common? They went up on an experimental spacecraft on its shakedown cruise. They’re coming down on a different spacecraft than planned — a different make of spacecraft, even. That’s never happened before, and is neither normal nor common. The spacecraft type they flew up will almost certainly never fly again because of how badly the shakedown went. That’s never happened before to a manned design to my knowledge — certainly not normal or common.
    • eth0up 2y ago
      Because I cannot upvote comments on HN, I'll clutter the thread by thanking both you and the other fellow who gave pretty good explanations.
      • samatman 2y ago
        It appears you're referring to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30742539 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30742539 The most likely explanation of the effect you're observing is that the server, having done a database fetch to get you the profile once, is not interested in doing it over and over again. It's cached. You do not have a uniquely broken upvote button.
• neverrroot 2y ago
  “Ultimately, NASA felt it was not able to understand why the thrusters malfunctioned and decided that it was too risky to return its astronauts to Earth aboard Starliner, which will attempt to return uncrewed.” Too risky? Stranded? Rescued (hopefully)?
• huijzer 2y ago
  I read somewhere someone who compared news to the presenters at a horse race. If you just look, it might be a boring uneventful race. But if you listen to the presenters, it’s very exciting. “Now horse A is in front!!! Oh wait. Horse B takes the lead!! Wait. Horse A is coming back.” For example, EV taxes in Europe “There are rumors on EV taxes!! Wait some guy says there will be no extra taxes!! Oh wait. Rumors for 40%!! No 30%!! Breaking news!! It’s 40%!”
  • aidenn0 2y ago
    See also Jelle's Marble Runs e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sHu99vdz-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sHu99vdz-A
  • throwaway4aday 2y ago
    Unfortunately, they've taken to doing things like saying Horse C is in the lead when it's actually Horse B and telling everyone Horse A has gone lame when it's clearly neck in neck with Horse B while pretending that Horse D doesn't exist because they don't like the jockey.
    • walterbell 2y ago
      Community Notes template for multiple contexts.
  • Loughla 2y ago
    I am absolutely convinced that the 24 hour news cycle is the problem in society at large, at least in the US. Everything else draws from that. Social media, full of bullshit to drive eyes to constant news feed. Political divide literally caused by the 24 hour cycle. It needs to end.
• joe_the_user 2y ago
  "It isn't a rescue mission, it's a regular crew rotation mission with modifications..." Rescue definition: an act of saving or being saved from danger or distress. The mission to take astronauts off the space station clearly fits this definition - an extended, unplanned and indefinite stay in space has to be distressing at the least. Has the HN standard become that you can argue the most ridiculous thing if you make that argument against the media? Edit: "regular crew rotation" implies normal and expected but the point is, even if the crew is in no danger, this wasn't regular or expected.
  • gpm 2y ago
    This launch was normal and expected crew rotation, they just kicked a few people off the mission so that there would be open seats on the way back.
    • bmitc 2y ago
      Yes, to rescue two other people stranded on the ISS who were supposed to return home weeks ago.
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > normal and expected crew rotation, they just kicked a few people off the mission so that there would be open seats That’s neither normal nor expected! Go back to the age of exploration. A crew’s ship strands them on an island. Another ship was due to come anyway in 6 weeks, and the crew have enough food to last them that interval. They use witches to tell the coming crew of their problems, and that ship agrees to lighten its load to make room for the stranded. This is a rescue! It’s an easy rescue. But so was, like, pulling my puppy out of the neighbor’s pool when it went under the cover.
      • ghodith 2y ago
        Only seems like a rescue if you specify that they're alone on the island to be honest. If you had said that they were left at an outpost with other people for six months it somewhat loses it's "rescue" vibes.
• justin66 2y ago
  So “regular” they had to bump two astronauts who had trained for a mission on ISS.
• renewiltord 2y ago
  Yeah, something people forget is routine things happen. But people like to think of events as singular unexpected grand things even if they’re just part of an older expected thing. Take D-day for instance. We make movies about the landings and how dramatic it was, but the truth: a regular troop rotation into territory, something routine for the armed forces.
  • lostlogin 2y ago
    I can’t tell if you’re joking? D-Day being ‘a regular troop rotation’ is an amazing description.
  • nick3443 2y ago
    No
• jmyeet 2y ago
  I see this claim a lot and I honestly don't understand why people refuse to see this for the disaster it is (for Boeing). An 8 day mission turned into a months-long mission unexepctedly and SpaceX ultimately had to bump 2 trained astronauts to return them to Earth. That's the very definition of a rescue and just a wildly massive PR disaster to boot. Beyond this, we still have no idea of what it will take to return Starliner to flightworthiness and give NASA the confidence that it can carry out an entire mission. It may be completely or just practically doomed at this point.
  • dotnet00 2y ago
    It was a disaster for Boeing, it was not a disaster for the astronauts. Extending stays at the station is not unheard of for test flights, the Crew Dragon test flight also involved the crew staying longer than initially intended, as NASA decided that it'd be a more effective use of resources to do so. SpaceX did not have to bump 2 trained astronauts to return them to Earth. That was simply the cheapest, least disruptive way to bring them back. There has always been the option of sending a dedicated Dragon for them, but that would require NASA to pay for an entire additional Dragon mission just to bring two people back who are in no urgent need of bringing back. You go to an island for your employer, and the ferry breaks down once you get there. While your employer can send another ferry soon to bring you back, they ask if you'd be okay staying for a rotation because that'd be more convenient for them. They also arrange a means for you to leave in case of an emergency. You're enjoying the island, so you agree. The replacement ferry is not a rescue. Starliner made the uncrewed return just fine, which means that on NASA's side, the return to flight should not be too complicated (well, besides showing that the doghouse deformation issues have been resolved) and should not involve a redo of this flight. What remains to be seen is what position Boeing takes on it, as they have been very quiet over if they're going to continue in Commercial Crew.
    • sneak 2y ago
      They could also pay Russia to bring them back to Kazakhstan on a Soyuz. Another American ISS astronaut, Tracy Dyson, came back in this manner last Monday.
• mannyv 2y ago
  Well hmm. NASA decided Starliner wasn't safe enough to use for the return journey, so the astronauts stayed on the ISS until the next ride became available. Originally the astronauts were supposed to go back on Starliner. Now they're taking another ride back. Is that considered a rescue? Well, it depends. If you get left behind on an island because your ride wasn't safe and another boat picks you up, is that a rescue? Now what if you're 420 kilometers up and another boat has to come get you. Is that a rescue? If there wasn't another ride from the ISS available, would the astronauts be stranded? Yes. In that case, if a ride suddenly became available would it be considered a rescue? Probably, yes.
  • gwbas1c 2y ago
    > Is that a rescue? Well, was there an accident? It seems like the astronauts staying extra long is to avoid an accident. Does their need to be an accident to call it a rescue?
    • ethbr1 2y ago
      There was not, considering Starliner landed safely about a month ago. NASA was uncomfortable with the amount of risk in a new vehicle exhibiting anomalous behavior, for its first crewed re-entry. The headline here should be: "US glad to have two separate suppliers for crewed transport"
      • nick3443 2y ago
        Three, if you are willing to count Soyuz. Are we still using Soyuz?
        • philwelch 2y ago
          Yeah, we have an active seat-trading arrangement with the Russians where they send cosmonauts to ride Dragon and we send astronauts to ride Soyuz.
        • dotancohen 2y ago
• moralestapia 2y ago
  Lol, people still shilling for Boeing at this point. Unbelievable.
  • dotnet00 2y ago
    Pointing out overly sensational and misleading reporting is not shilling for Boeing.
• JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > it's a regular crew rotation mission with modifications Standard but modified is an oxymoron. This is an irregular mission. NASA plans with tonnes of redundancy. That’s paying off here. Being prepared doesn’t poof away a fuck-up, it just means you can take it in stride. Starliner stranded two astronauts in space. Dragon is fixing that. Being saved from being stranded sure as hell sounds like being rescued, even if it’s close to routine. > Starliner was still deemed to be safe enough to be the emergency escape option while it was docked This is a threshold met by a torn parachute on a jet.
  • dotnet00 2y ago
    >This is a threshold met by a torn parachute on a jet. Not when it was the preferred option over sticking seats in Crew-8, right up until Starliner's software changes for uncrewed return started.
    • JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > when it was the preferred option over sticking seats in Crew-8 It was the preferred option before it failed. Between first failure and return it was not the preferred option as it was. It was preferred assuming it worked. But the assumption couldn’t be proven, in part due to Boeing’s shoddy ground sims.
  • ethbr1 2y ago
    > Starliner stranded two astronauts in space. It didn't, because it wasn't simply broken -- it had unexpected behavior. It ended up landing fine. I'm uncomfortable heaping pejoratives on what we should expect NASA to do: make engineering decisions to minimize risk and maximize chance of mission success. Increasing the reputational or financial penalties to suppliers incentivizes exactly the sort of decisions that blew up Challenger and Columbia.
    • thfuran 2y ago
      >It ended up landing fine. Were the astronauts in it when it landed?
• bapr 2y ago
  [dead]
• nimbius 2y ago
  Occhams razor might say the reasons to downplay this incident are overwhelmingly more attractive. - Boeing is a fortune 50 company and is a direct contributor to news media advertising revenue. - Boeing is a darling of US aerospace and a bulwark of us international projection of soft power and defense. Telling the truth will destroy the us aircraft market. - china does not have this problem with its space program. The comac airliner also directly competes with Boeing's beleaguered 737 - loss of confidence in the us space program at the vehicle level jeopardizes trust from consumers and insurance companies in the us space products market like satellite launches.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • anonylizard 2y ago
    Well no one is losing confidence in US space program. Since SpaceX has the overwhelming global lead in space engineering. The main issue is, NASA for political reasons, has to keep the delusion of the 'have 2 suppliers'. Boeing is clearly nonviable anymore, but as you said, it has tremendous influence in US congress, so NASA pays them billions. NASA's programs would be simpler if they simply just dumped all the money to SpaceX, but that could cause longer term issues. The other solution would be partnering with Airbus as the backup supplier, but that would cause political earthquake.
  • tjpnz 2y ago
    >The comac airliner also directly competes with Boeing's beleaguered 737 Not in any remotely meaningful way. Some estimates suggest it will be more than a decade before Comac will have the manufacturing capacity to fill existing domestic orders (as of now they've built 9). Then there's the fact that their planes aren't nearly as fuel efficient as those from Boeing and Airbus - the engines may be imports but are neutered due to export restrictions. China's own airlines aren't even interested.
    • dotancohen 2y ago
      > it will be more than a decade before Comac will have the manufacturing capacity to fill even domestic orders If you think that a decade is enough time for Boeing (or Airbus) to react to losing one large market and having a new competitor encroach on existing markets, then I suggest looking at past airliner development programs. A decade is nothing in this industry. And China, specifically, is known for being able to scale manufacturing - so they may not have a decade like us Westerners think.
• charles_f 2y ago
  Calling it rescue or not doesn't matter. The primary objective was test flight for Starliner. Mission is a success, in that it proved Starliner is not safe. Now they're coming down using Dragon, which is the very expensive backup plan, and which is absolutely not what was planned. Whether you want to call it a rescue or not and play semantics or metaphors all night is your absolute right, but it doesn't change the failure of Starliner in this case.
  • ethbr1 2y ago
    >> "If we'd have had a crew on board the spacecraft, we would have followed the same back away sequence from the space station, the same deorbit burn and executed the same entry. And so it would have been a safe, successful landing with the crew on board," said Steve Stich, manager of NASA's Commercial Crew Program... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/astronauts-would-have-been-fine-on-boeing-s-starliner-during-landing-nasa-says/ar-AA1qvWiV https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/astronauts-would-h...
    • nick3443 2y ago
      Russian roulette is safe! I played once and didn't die!
      • ethbr1 2y ago
        The point that half this comment section is missing is this is the sort of thing we want to encourage. The US spent extra money funding two separate vendors. One vendor exhibited a high level of risk in their first return. The astronauts were able to be returned on the second, already proven vendor. That's a great place to be in! The alternative, having to return astronauts on a high risk vehicle because it's the only option, is not a place we ever want to be in.
        • inglor_cz 2y ago
          What is not great is the fact that vendor 1 exhibited a string of concerning anomalies and accidents. Vendor 1 may be institutionally unfit to be a leg on which the US space program stands.
• mensetmanusman 2y ago
  If your car dies at night in the middle of a desert. Is the tow truck rescuing you?
• ascorbic 2y ago
  Calling it a rescue may or may not be accurate, but the replies to your comment show that it is at least open to discussion by people who presumably don't have a vested interest in the number of clicks on the article. That would mean that it's not really clickbait to call it this.
• rig666 2y ago
  Let's be honest. The mental gymnastics to avoid calling it a rescue is just a political knee jerk reaction to Elon Musk's ownership in SpaceX. If you lose your ability to become objective based on your view no amount of philosophical discourse is going to be meaningful. It's comments like this why "cope & seeth" has flourished in the modern lexicon
  • Teever 2y ago
    The government would be doing the exact same thing to avoid bad PR if this didn't involve him.
  • dotnet00 2y ago
    Accusing me of taking issue with Elon's ownership is funny, considering that usually I'm accused of being an Elon shill :)
    • gertop 2y ago
      Then maybe you're just a contrarian?
  • LightBug1 2y ago
    Personally, that's a part of it. I might it find more tasteful if Shotwell and her team (the actual heroes) were ones getting the credit here, but Musk will get the headlines. But it's not a political knee jerk reaction. It's an actual jerk reaction to him being such an actual jerk. The guy, and his current cohot, are distateful wankers. Excuse my English.
    • hayd 2y ago
      Politicians should not, indeed in the US it can be illegal for government branches to, make decisions based on the political views of a vendor’s CEO. Clearly the current administration have been doing this willy nilly. Excuse my English.
    • iknowstuff 2y ago
      what gives you the idea that Shotwell is more responsible for SpaceX’s success than Musk?
• sunshinerag 2y ago
  It is a rescue mission
• marcosvm 2y ago
  Easy to say while we're safe down on Earth.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• exe34 2y ago
  could I ask, under what conditions would you consider it a rescue?
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• elif 2y ago
  When you have extremely limited supplies, are as isolated from humanity as possible, and there are only 2 vehicles capable of transporting you, and one of them is reigniting a cold war with you, you are considered imperiled. I'm sorry. If dragon did not exist, the rescue mission would still be embroiled in diplomacy and not in orbit already. You only get the luxury of your non-rescue position due to hindsight.
  • ericpauley 2y ago
    But dragon does exist. This is like saying you’re stranded when you’re car camping in the woods.
    • ceejayoz 2y ago
      Helicopters exist, but when one picks me up from my campsite in the woods, I'm probably being rescued.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• DLA 2y ago
  It is a rescue mission. The original mission was supposed to be a couple weeks and that extended to nearly 8 months due to unrecoverable issues with Starliner. That’s not a crew rotation, it’s a major failure of Starliner. As for the escape option while docked, even a leaky boat is better than no boat if the ship is sinking, but the fact is NASA elected to not return the crew on Starliner for safety reasons.